Right now, I'd imagine EE would be playing third. He's hurt, so we can't say what he'd be doing to this point, but if you take his career .790 OPS vs. Rolen current .840 it's not that big of a difference. And defensively, Encarnacion's career UZR/150 is actually better (-13.2) than Rolen's current (-15.4).
And then there's Roenicke, who's pitched well enough, and if he were with the Reds, we probably never would never have seen Ondrusek or Fisher, and how much have those guys hurt us?
So even if you ignore Stewart (which is unfair, I think) and just focus on the other two, how much has Rolen really added? Not much, I'd say.
I know you guys seriously cant be suggesting that you can go back and have revisionist history in trades? Aaron Harang wasnt even the guy the Reds thought was the prize of the Jose Guillen trade, but did it work out for us? Yes. If Oakland knew what they knew now about Harang would they have ever made that trade? No I'm guessing they probably wouldnt have.
just because Stewart might not be pitching well now doesnt change the fact that at the time of the trade he was. You cant go back in time and say well "in the future Stewart wont pitch well in AA for Toronto so the deal looks good to me". And thats what a lot of you are trying to do now.
This is, of course, true but, in another way, the whole "value" analogy is not really appropriate. The stock analogy would only work if there was liquidity in the market so that it was really true that, if you didn't spend your dollar on Scott Rolen, you could spend it somewhere else. Trades are about individuals, not values, something we've forgotten because we've mystified ourselves with all the information we now have about prospects' supposed "values."
You can make a judgment about a trade when it happens based on how much you as a bystander like the trade.Are you just trolling me? When trading guys what matters is at the time of the trade. If for some reason one of the players falls off the face of the earth it doesnt devalue them until that happens.
You can make a judgment about how successful a trade is only after enough time has passed that you see how it has affected the teams involved.
"Baseball is a very, very complex business. It's more of a people business than most businesses." - Bob Castellini
Here is the thing. People want to be optimistic about their prospects and as such they tend to focus on a prospect's ceiling especially when things are going well. I mean there is a reason people are more excited about Aroldis Chapman than Matt Maloney despite their similar AAA number right?
At the time of the deal Stewart was percieved to have a high ceiling. He had big stuff and was an extreme groundball pitcher, both of which play very well in GAB. Throw in the fact that he was moving quickly through the system that at the time had no good power arms at the upper levels and it was pretty easy to see why people were high on him. I think I evaluate prospects pretty fairly and I know he was a guy I was very high on mainly because I focused on his upside.